China, obstacles and future of philanthropy（中国慈善事业的障碍和前途）

China, obstacles and future of philanthropy Days of the Institute of Economics Mao Yushi
 
    Recently in China the world's richest man, Gates and Buffett, charity promotion at the banquet. Their aim is undoubtedly to Way charitable donations. Because China's economic growth is very high, the emergence of a large number of billionaires. China's luxury goods market is extremely prosperous, advanced cars, art, watches, luxury sales very busy. In this context, charitable donations of money should not be a problem. But the big surprise out of people, who had a response. This situation caused a scolding voice, the conscience of China, where the rich go? China's charity cause there hope?
    China's rich do not want to pay for charity, are the reasons? They mean, could not bear to spend money on it? No. A lot of their money, several lifetimes are used up, a little money for them, did not result in the loss of life. Their mentality and general people are different, with the ordinary conduct of psychological speculation that they have not the right conclusion. For them, their lack is not money, but the property's security, and social prestige. If the money can be earned property, security and social prestige, for them, is very cost-effective. With redundant, use up things, to exchange their most scarce thing is very rational behavior.
    The problem lies here. In China, the rich do not give charity to bring the security of property and social prestige, but rather the opposite. A result of the rich more rich Lu unsafe reputation worse. This is the rich do not want to pay for the root cause of charity. China's environment is very different from the United States. A symbol of wealth in the United States individual success, is our role model. In China is different. China's rich are scolded the object is a typical exploitation. Does not reveal the rich a little better, Lo Fu is a bit of good results are not there will be.
    Chinese identity is the labor theory of value. All wealth is created by labor. Difference is not labor people, and therefore, according to this theory, people's wealth should not be a big difference. If large differences of wealth, must be exploited to is the wealth created by others by improper means to become your property. So rich people in China is no good reputation. Before the burst of popularity over the original sin theory that the rich in China are all sin. I am afraid that this argument can get most people agree.
    Point of view in the political environment, we are running down after the liberation of the rich policies. Landlords and rich peasants in rural areas has been eliminated, the capitalists of the city was transformed. Results in China eradicate the rich, the poor country into a letter. In the reform of the whole of China in 1978, the eve of individuals have no private cars. Three generations of poor farmers in the community and promotion of the object is to rely on the rich is to be under the heel. Only the poor can have a future. Fu is the root of all evils. The slightest word who and the rich, who would be bad luck, a lifetime of discrimination, even the children are involved. Unless you got rid of and the relationship between the rich, or, unless you become poorer.
    The situation has greatly changed after the reform, the rich reduce the taboo word. First, the view of private property from illegal, and gradually recognize its legitimacy. The provisions of the constitution of private property through several revisions, and never to force protection protection, but still Niuniunienie, not righteous. Such as the provision of public property is sacred and inviolable (did not say whether the legal, as long as public property is sacred and inviolable), and for the protection of lawful private property only. As to what is legal, to be explained by other laws. This left a lot of flexible space. In particular, the Constitution begins, says, "class struggle will be long in a certain range." Class struggle and who is fighting who, of course, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat can only fight. As long as the bourgeoisie, there is always the possibility of Aidou. President Hu Jintao advocated harmonious society, very popular. However, we do not know harmony is true or struggle is real. And the United States (or other developed countries) than it, they do not speak of exploitation and struggle, there is clearly safer. In particular, has not changed the name of the Communist Party, said that it was to be a communist. This, of course we not assured.
    Property is protected by law. However, the law and the party of ideas always compete. So there is a large party or a law major problems. In fact, if the leadership of the party made, the judge is not defiance. So all of the rich and political stay away, the fear and the party issued a statement inconsistent with the idea of the insecurity of property incurred. More intelligent approach is faithful to the party table, a CPPCC National Committee members or deputies for the location of the privilege by the CPPCC National People's Congress to protect their persons and property. However, this privilege is also very unreliable, and said waste to waste. Moreover, there is lack of transparency of judicial time. While justice is obvious, the result of judgments often unpredictable, it is entirely possible to stay away from justice.
    Exploiters to own property will bring bad reputation, and property of the lack of security. Exposed in such a society is the most stupid way rich. So the rich solution is to quietly transfer the property to a safe place to foreign countries, rather than donations to charity. This is a large number of wealthy immigrants in recent years, the background of Western countries.
    The basic situation in China is destined to do charity by the rich is not much hope. Change this situation possible? This will involve a series of basic questions. China is moving towards the road like the U.S., completely denied the exploitation theory; or the like as the Nordic social democracy? Or are there better ways, even to the Cuban model, Korean model, can not say absolutely impossible. But even if this transformation possible, but also a very long time, not eight or ten years that can be resolved. Concept in China has also exist, of the rich is hard to have a complete change rapidly. Therefore, how to develop philanthropy in China must also find a way out. China's way is the ordinary people I think charity, rather than the rich, philanthropy. In fact, the source of charitable donations in the United States, not all rely on the rich, more by the general public. Each charity as part of the daily life of ordinary people. Charitable expenditure and food and clothing, is a necessary expenditure. Of course, the percentage is not only one percent of household income, two, three. However, the national level, the total is very impressive, enough national charity needs.
    This road is now advocated by Jet Li One Foundation, donated a dollar per person per month. I think in this direction in China's national conditions, to have a broad development prospects. But the One Foundation recently encountered great difficulties. The reason is that philanthropy and the state's monopoly on the attempt on. The Chinese Government's basic attitude is to encourage people to take money but the operation should be done by the government. If people put up their own money, their operation, the Government is not encouraged. This is apparent in the provisions of charitable organizations registered with the provisions of the difference in the treatment of tax on donations. Particularly civil society is extremely difficult to obtain legal status charity. So they can not open bank accounts without their own seal, no contributions to open a legitimate receipt. Therefore not to the public donations. Only these things can do a charity affiliated to the government. Of course, if the government has done a very good charity, but also not a bad idea. Problems in the government's problems are often plagued charity. Lack of a reasonable target specific relief operation opaque, there is no passion, cold play by the rules, there are a lot of corruption and waste. We make money not worry. This greatly hindered the development of philanthropy in China.
    A fundamental problem is that the government should or should not do charity? I think it should not. This involved what is the function of government. Government is different from civil society, its most important feature is backed with force, you can use coercive measures to achieve a particular goal, such as defense, public security, taxation, food safety, and environmental protection, but does not include charity. Charity does not require any mandatory power, contrary to the enthusiasm and detail. This is precisely what the government lacks. Therefore, governments around the world do not do charity (but the Government adjust the income gap, social security), is left to private charities do business.
    As Gates and Warren Buffett's visit to China, raises many of the idea of philanthropy. In fact, whether both of them did not visit China, China's direction and future of philanthropy is that we must discuss and put into practice. (Blog admin: Miss thinking the same)
译者；谷歌翻译           作者；茅于轼
本文来自新浪博客；http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_49a3971d0100m8fs.html?tj=1

中国慈善事业的障碍和前途

天则经济研究所    茅于轼

    最近全球首富盖茨和巴菲特来华，举行慈善宣传宴会。他们的目的无疑是来劝募慈善捐款。因为中国经济增长非常高，涌现大批亿万富翁。中国的高档消费品市场极其繁荣，高级轿车，艺术品，名表，豪宅销售极旺。在这样的背景下，募捐慈善用款理应不成问题。可是大出人们的意料，响应者了了。这种状况引起一片责骂声，中国富人的良心哪里去了？中国的慈善事业还有希望吗？

    中国富人不愿意出钱做慈善，其原因何在？是他们吝啬，舍不得花钱吗？不是。他们的钱很多，几辈子都用不完，出一点钱对他们来讲不会对生活造成丝毫的损失。他们的心态和一般人不同，用普通人的心理猜测他们的行为得不出正确的结论。对他们来讲，他们缺的不是钱，而是财产的安全，和社会的声望。如果出钱能够挣来财产的安全和社会的声望，对他们来讲是十分合算的。用多余的，用不完的东西，交换他们最稀缺的东西是非常理性的行为。

    问题就出在这里。在中国做慈善并不能给富人带来财产的安全和社会的名望，而是恰恰相反。富人露富的结果是更不安全，名声更糟。这是中国富人不愿意出钱做慈善的根本原因。中国的环境很不同于美国。在美国财富象征着个人的成功，是大家学习的榜样。在中国则不同。中国的富人是挨骂的对象，是剥削的典型。不露富还好一点，露富是一点好结果都不会有的。

    中国人认同的是劳动价值论。一切财富都是劳动创造的。人与人的劳动差别是不大的，因此根据这个理论，人与人的财富也不应该相差很大。如果财富的差别大，一定是剥削得来的，是别人创造的财富通过不正当的手段变成了你的财产。因此富人在中国是没有好名声的。前一阵流行过原罪理论，认为中国的富人都是有原罪的。这个说法恐怕能得到大多数人的赞同。

    在政治环境上来看，解放后我们执行的是打倒富人的政策。农村的地主富农被消灭了，城市里的资本家被改造了。结果在中国彻底铲除了富人，变成了不折不扣的穷人国。在改革前夕的1978年全中国没有任何个人有私人小汽车。在社会上三代贫农是依靠和提拔的对象，富人是要被踩在脚底下的。只有穷才能有前途。富则是一切祸害的根源。谁和富字沾上边，谁就会倒霉，一辈子被歧视，连子女都受累。除非你摆脱了和富的关系，或者说，除非你变穷了。

    改革后情况有了很大变化，对富字的忌讳减少了。首先对私人财产的看法从非法，逐步承认其合法性。宪法对私人财产的规定经过几次修改，从不保护到勉强的保护，但还是扭扭捏捏，不是理直气壮。比如对公共财产的规定是神圣不可侵犯（没有说是否合法，只要是公共财产都是神圣不可侵犯的），而对于私人财产只保护合法的。至于什么是合法的，要由别的法律来解释。这就留下了很大的灵活空间。尤其是宪法开篇就说，“阶级斗争将在一定范围内长期存在”。阶级斗争是谁和谁斗，当然只能是资产阶级和无产阶级斗。只要是资产阶级，挨斗的可能性始终存在。胡锦涛主席提倡和谐社会，很受欢迎。但是大家不知道和谐是真还是斗争是真。和美国（或别的发达国家）比起来，他们不讲剥削和斗争，显然那里比较安全。特别是共产党至今没有改名字，还说是要共产的。这当然叫人不放心。

    财产是靠法律保障的。可是我国的法律和党的主张始终在较量。所以有党大还是法大的问题。事实上如果党的领导发了话，法官是不敢违抗的。所以我国的富人都和政治离得远远地，生怕发表了和党的主张不一致的言论招致财产的不安全。更聪明的办法是向党表忠心，争取一个政协委员或人大代表的位置，靠政协人大的特权保护自己的人身和财产。不过这种特权也非常不可靠，说废就废。更何况司法还有不透明的时候。正义虽然是明显的，判案的结果却往往不可预见，它完全可能远离正义。

    拥有财产会带来剥削者的坏名声，财产的安全缺乏保障。在这样的社会中露富是最愚蠢的做法。所以富人的对策是不声不响地把财产转移去外国安全的地方，而不是捐款做慈善。这就是近年来大批富人移民西方国家的背景。

    这一基本情况注定了在中国靠富人做慈善是没有多大希望的。改变这一情况有可能吗？这将涉及到一系列最基本的问题。中国是走向像美国那样的道路，彻底否认剥削理论；还是像北欧那样的社会民主主义？或者还有更理想的方式，甚至采取古巴模式，朝鲜模式，都不能说绝对没有可能。不过这一转变即使可能，也要很长的时间，不是十年八年所能够解决的。在中国已有的观念还将存在下去，富人的地位很难有迅速彻底的改变。因此在中国如何发展慈善事业必须另外找出路。中国的出路我认为就是普通百姓的慈善事业，而非富人的慈善事业。其实在美国慈善捐款的来源也不全是靠富人，更多的是靠普通群众。慈善成为每一个百姓的日常生活的一部分。慈善开支和吃穿用一样，是一个必要的支出。当然，其百分比不大，只不过家庭收入的百分之一，二，三。但就全国而言，总数就非常可观，足够全国慈善事业所需。

    这条道路就是现在李连杰所倡导的壹基金，每人每月捐一块钱。我认为这个方向符合中国的国情，能有广阔的发展前途。但是壹基金近来遭遇很大的困难。其原因是和国家对慈善事业的垄断企图有关。中国政府的基本态度是鼓励民间拿钱但是操作要由政府来做。如果民间自己拿钱，自己操作，政府是不鼓励的。这一点很明显表现在慈善组织注册的规定条文，在善款纳税的区别对待上。特别是民间的慈善极难获得合法身份。因此他们不能在银行开设账号，没有自己的图章，也开不出捐款的合法收据。因此也不能向公众募捐。这些事只有挂靠政府的慈善机构能做。当然，如果政府的慈善做得很好，也未尝不可。问题在政府的慈善事业往往毛病丛生。救济目标缺乏合理的针对性，操作不透明，没有热情，是冷冰冰的照章办事，还有不少贪污浪费。使得大家出钱不放心。这就大大地阻碍了中国慈善事业的发展。

    一个根本问题是政府该不该做慈善？我认为不该。这里涉及到政府的功能是什么。政府不同于一般民间组织，它最重要的特点是具有武力做后盾，可以用强制措施来达到某一特定的目标，如国防，公安，纳税，食品安全，甚至环保，但是不包括慈善。做慈善不需要任何强制性的力量，相反，要的是热情和细致。这正好是政府所缺乏的。所以世界各国的政府都不做慈善（但是政府调整收入差距，提供社会保障），慈善是留给民间做的事业。

    由于盖茨和巴菲特访华，引出许多对慈善事业的想法。其实，不管他们两位来不来华，中国慈善事业的方向和前途是一定要讨论并付诸实施的。(博客管理员：陆思同)